Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > May 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-32080 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32080. May 22, 1975.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., Defendants, AGUSTIN ALQUIZAR and MARCELO LOZANO, Appellants.

SYNOPSIS


Pending the reconstitution or retaking of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as ordered by the Supreme Court in the instant appeal, counsel for the appellants moved that he be allowed to present other witnesses and that, as a consequence, a new trial or re-trial be had. The Supreme Court denied the request for new trial for lack of merit.

Request to substitute the missing testimony or testimonies of the witnesses granted.


SYLLABUS


1. RECONSTITUTION OF EVIDENCE; WHEN TRANSCRIPT OF WITNESS’S TESTIMONY HAS BEEN LOST; CASE AT BAR. — Where the transcript of the testimony of some prosecution witnesses has been lost, reconstitution thereof, not a new trial, may be ordered (People v. Castelo, Et Al., No. L-10074, February 16, 1961).

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN NEW TRIAL MAY BE ORDERED. — It is only when the decision itself has been lost and no authentic copy thereof is obtainable that the case should be decided anew a if it had never been decided (ibid).

3. NEW TRIAL; SWORN STATEMENT OF PRISONER OWNING CRIME, NOT PROPER BASIS.— Request for new trial or re-trial based on the sworn statement of a prisoner, exculpating appellants of the crime for which they were charged and convicted and stating that the prisoner alone committed the crime, is not countenanced.

4. ID.; ID.; REASON. — It is not improbable that such scheme is conceived and carried out for a consideration, usually monetary, and that if successful, and the person convicted is finally acquitted, it would still remain for the Government to successfully prosecute and find guilty the convict assuming responsibility because he might then repudiate the contents of his affidavit and resort to other schemes to avoid criminal responsibility himself (People v. Francisco, 94 Phil. 975).


R E S O L U T I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Pursuant to the appeal interposed by defendants Agustin Alquizar and Marcelo Lozano from the judgment of conviction rendered by the Criminal Circuit Court of Zamboanga del Sur in Criminal Case No. CCC-XVI-16-2 DS (3433), the record of said case was transmitted to this Court.

On June 18, 1970, the following resolution was adopted —

"Considering the letter of transmittal of record of the Deputy Clerk Lazaro N. Baarde of the Criminal Circuit Court of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, stating that stenographer Melquiades Asuncion died in a sea accident on February 6, 1969 and that he had with him in that accident the untranscribed stenographic notes he had taken in the trial of this case, THE COURT RESOLVED to require the parties herein to move in the premises, within 10 days from notice hereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Solicitor General, in his comment dated July 21, 1970, stated that it is necessary to remand the case to the lower court for the reconstitution of the testimonies of the witnesses enumerated in the letter of transmittal of Deputy Clerk Lazaro N. Baarde.

Thus, in accordance with the resolution of this Court dated July 8, 1970, the original record of aforesaid criminal case was remanded to the court of origin on July 13, 1970, "for the reconstitution of the testimonies of the 10 witnesses involved or for the retaking of their testimonies."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pending the reconstitution or the retaking of the testimonies of the witnesses, counsel for the appellants filed by mail on July 8, 1974 a motion praying —

"1. That the herein appellants be allowed to present Patricio Barrera and other witness in the re-taking of the testimonies;

2. That the appellant be granted new trial or re-trial in view of the above developments."cralaw virtua1aw library

On being required to do so, the Solicitor General filed his comment on the said motion. 1 This Court in the case of People v. Castelo, Et. Al. (1 SCRA 461-462) had occasion to resolve a similar situation, stating that —

"The remedy, in case the transcript of the stenographic notes, containing the testimony of some prosecution witnesses has been lost is reconstitution of the missing evidence, not a new trial. It is only when the decision itself has been lost and no authentic copy thereof obtainable that the case should be decided anew as if it had never been decided."cralaw virtua1aw library

So that —

"In the exercise of the court’s inherent power to supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings and of its discretion to adopt, in the absence of any specific procedure, any suitable process or mode of proceedings, which appears most conformable to the spirit of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court decided to remand an appealed case to the court solely for the purpose of reconstructing the testimony of the witnesses, the stenographic notes of whose testimony had been lost, by retaking their testimony and, if deemed necessary, of some other witness who had personal knowledge of the facts testified to by the witness who is dead."cralaw virtua1aw library

We cannot, however, countenance appellants’ request for new trial or re-trial on the strength of the sworn statement of Patricio Barrera given before Special Counsel Mauro G. Macaso of the Office of the City Fiscal of Zamboanga City on December 10, 1973, exculpating said appellants of the crime for which they were charged and convicted, by claiming that he and his companions, namely, Yoyong Cumidoy, Siano Asemblea, Frank Delfero, Bernabe Morales and Daniel Mancieda, committed the same crime. We are not unfamiliar with affidavits of this nature, executed by a fellow prisoner who assumes full responsibility for the commission of a crime. And this is not the first time to discredit such kind of affidavit. This Court had occasion to make this pointed observation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where the evidence against an accused is overwhelming, much importance should not be given to affidavits where persons serving long sentence for serious crimes committed by them and therefore have not much, if anything, to lose, assume responsibility for crime of which fellow prisoners had been convicted in order to save the latter from criminal responsibility It is not improbable that said schemes are conceived and carried out for a consideration, usually monetary, and that if successful, and the person convicted is finally acquitted, it would still remain for the Government to successfully prosecute and find guilty the convict assuming responsibility because he might then repudiate the contents of his affidavit and resort to other schemes to avoid criminal responsibility himself." 2

WHEREFORE, the request of the appellants to substitute the testimony or testimonies of the ten witnesses named in the letter of transmittal of Deputy Clerk Lazaro N. Baarde is hereby granted, as long as the Provincial Fiscal shall certify that the original witness or witnesses are no longer available and the substance of the testimony of the original witness shall not be altered. The stenographer or stenographers who will assist during the re-hearing shall immediately transcribe their notes and shall file their transcripts with this Court within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the re-trial. The request for new trial or re-trial is denied.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Resolution of August 5, 1974.

2. People v. Francisco, 94 Phil. 975.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29129 May 8, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MABUYO

  • G.R. No. L-33516 May 8, 1975 - MARIANO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37364 May 9, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 547 January 29, 1975 - EMERENCIANA V. REYES v. FELIPE C. WONG

  • G.R. No. L-27674 May 12, 1975 - SOLEDAD T. CONSING, ET AL. v. JOSE T. JAMANDRE

  • G.R. No. L-40143 May 12, 1975 - MARIANO G. HIQUIANA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 487-CAR May 13, 1975 - ROMULO G. LOPEZ v. GETULIO Z. GUEVARA

  • G.R. No. L-25048 May 13, 1975 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-34314 May 13, 1975 - SOFIA PASTOR DE MIDGELY v. PIO B. FERANDOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38096 May 14, 1975 - CONCEPCION T. UY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 77-MJ May 16, 1975 - JUAN B. CASTILLO v. TEOFILO A. BARSANA

  • A.M. No. P-124 May 16, 1975 - SOLEDAD V. GANADEN v. GREGORIO N. BOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39569 May 16, 1975 - CROMWEL DENILA, ET AL. v. JOSUE BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 804-CJ May 19, 1975 - SATURNINO SELANOVA v. ALEJANDRO E. MENDOZA

  • A.C. No. 1081 May 19, 1975 - ABUNDIO BALDOMAN v. ROQUE LUSPO

  • G.R. No. L-20203 May 19, 1975 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26191 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BESANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-39993 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 534-CFI May 20, 1975 - LYDIA S. NOCUM v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. L-28649 May 21, 1975 - FRANCISCO J. NICOLAS v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33720-21 May 21, 1975 - PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 411-MJ May 22, 1975 - ERNESTO R. GONZALES v. VICENTE DE RODA OF BOGO, CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-32080 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36022 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO JOVEN

  • G.R. No. L-39115 May 26, 1975 - SEGIFREDO L. ACLARACION v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40010 May 26, 1975 - RUSSEL R. ENERIO, ET AL. v. NESTOR B. ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25921 May 27, 1975 - VANGUARD ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 41-MJ May 28, 1975 - ALFREDO ARPON v. ARISTIDES B. DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-242 May 28, 1975 - PEDRO PINEDA v. MARIO A. HIZALAN

  • A.M. No. 429-MJ May 28, 1975 - GASPAR PARENTE v. FERNANDO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-29128 May 28, 1975 - DOMINGA JAVIER, ET AL. v. SABAS MARFIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36560 May 28, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO ILAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39764 May 28, 1975 - ONG TIAO SENG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40491 May 28, 1975 - SEGUNDO AMANTE v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA

  • A.C. No. 203-CJ May 29, 1975 - PABLO MARCOS v. ANDRES DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 253-MJ May 29, 1975 - ALFONSO S. AUSEJO, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO P. PAJUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-24522 May 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-27534 May 29, 1975 - ATLAS TIMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31041 May 20, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO C. ALDE

  • G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975 - MANUEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 111-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELIX CARREON v. BRUNO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 810-CJ May 30, 1975 - JOSE KUAN SING v. ROSENDO BALTAZAR

  • A.M. No. 852-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELISBERTO ALEGRE v. RHODIE A. NIDEA

  • A.C. No. 905 May 30, 1975 - HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA v. ARSENIO R. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-25779 May 30, 1975 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26507 May 30, 1975 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-37378 May 30, 1975 - HIDELIZA C. CAMOMOT, ET AL. v. ROMULO SENINING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38502 May 30, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39741 May 30, 1975 - NATION MULTI SERVICE LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40187 May 30, 1975 - GENERAL TEXTILES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.